User:LGreg/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge (LG seminar 2020/21)/Seminar 9/Evidence

This is the sandbox page for the issue: Evidence.

Types of sources
There are three types of historical sources: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source#:~:text=In%20the%20study%20of%20history,of%20information%20about%20the%20topic. primary], secondary and tertiary. A primary source is an original piece of material such contemporary documentation, creative works and artefacts which are authoritative, while secondary sources are often extensions of primary sources such as scholarly articles or biographies and considered persuasive. Tertiary sources, rather than providing contemporary or post-contemporary insight aim to compile and index both primary and secondary sources for the purpose of navigation.

Both sources have advantages and disadvantages. The originality of primary sources lends confidence to the claims they make of contemporary context as they stem directly from the event, while secondary sources are subject to bias because they are purely interpretations of primary sources. However primary sources are often fragmented due to the passing of time and are not exhaustive. This is when the value of a secondary source becomes pronounced as the expertise of the writer lends insight unavailable to an unprofessional eye.

An example of this are the many philosophical treatises written in Ancient Greece such as those written by Plato and Aristotle; the fractured nature of these primary sources leave gaps in their philosophical enquiry and chronology and must be pieced together and analysed by scholars. The precursor of extensive corroboration and research in creating a secondary source can often paint a more complete picture than the primary source alone especially because primary sources are not necessarily concerned with objectivity.

Historical method
Ideally, history would be pieced together by objective examination of sources however its writers are rarely so free from bias. Historiography is the study of historical methodology: it skepticises assertions made by historians by examining how their internal biases and conformities lead to scholarly omission and misinterpretation. The notion of scholarly persona attempts to characterise the contextual affectations foisted upon historians by society and how they influence the perception of events and the creative links made between them. Key historiographical themes include personal biography, socio-political and religious context, institutionalised scholarship and historical methods; a case study examining the German historian Alfred Dove highlights the interference between these by themes by the nuances of persona thus producing a uniquely individual historical method and perspective inconducive with totally objective handling of evidence.

Introduction
Evidence is the foundation upon which academic disciplines are built. Having a firm knowledge base is an integral step in the process of subject matter becoming a discipline - this can be achieved through the use of evidence to either quantify or qualify the knowledge, ideas and data appropriately. Evidence can, however, cause conflict and issues within a discipline if used incorrectly or if the definition of evidence itself is contested between individuals, as has been seen in evidence-based medicine (EBM). EBM has been defined as "the conscientious, explicit, judicious and reasonable use of modern, best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients, integrating 'clinical experience and patient values with the best available research information." This definition raises the question of what evidence fundamentally is, who has the authority to classify something as evidence and how to distinguish between varying qualities of evidence - evidence therefore has the potential to cause a discord within the discipline and between those involved.

The distortion of evidence
Science (encompassing a wide range of disciplines, including medicine) and by default evidence, should, in theory, be neutral, although this can rarely, if ever, be the case. This is because science and evidence are embroiled in context, encompassing a wide array of ethical, social, political, cultural and personal circumstances. The evidence produced is also heavily dependent on who is conducting the research, and what they hope to achieve through it. This can cause an enormous issue in medicine, as evidence and facts can be distorted to fulfill a wide range of agendas, taking political and economic interests as two examples.

The types of evidence primarily employed in medicine are systematic reviews and randomised control trials (RCTs). RCTs are seen as the 'gold standard' for medical research, due to the randomised nature of the research and the fact that it enables outcomes to be directly correlated to interventions, as compounding factors and other influences are removed. Objectively, this type of evidence is the most robust and reliable and should theoretically be completely unbiased as a quantitative method of data display. Bias, however, has the potential to play a large role in research and the results produced, regardless of how ‘neutral’ a researcher tries to be, or how 'randomised' a trial is. This has led to cases of researchers manipulating trials and data to get the desired outcome, exploiting inclusion criteria for patients or being selective with the results that are published, in some cases even falsifying the data itself, although the occurrence is difficult to quantify due to the deceptive nature of the wrong-doing. This in itself makes finding the evidence to support the emerging problems with said evidence difficult. Scientists have been producing fraudulent data for centuries, with prominent figures such as Sigmund Freud and Isaac Newton fabricating data for personal gain. More recent examples of medical data manipulation include the case of Steven Eaton, a UK bio-analyst who falsified data from cancer drug research trials, claiming the drug worked when this was not the case.

Bridging Traditional Medicine with Evidence-Based Medicine
Traditional health systems such as Chinese Medicine or the Indian Ayurveda, rely on a holistic approach to healing the body. Historically, this has not been considered "worthy" in Western medicine, as it has not been viewed as evidence-based, drawing attention to the question of what the definition of evidence actually is. Many alternative medicines are described largely as "scientifically implausible" and not meeting "evidence-based standards," relying instead on anecdotal evidence. However, there are many epistemological approaches to medicine and collaboration between "Western" and "Eastern" methods can be mutually beneficial. EBM empowers prescribers, so these traditional methods should undergo the rigorous critical analysis that is key to EBM and its acceptance.

Conclusion
No matter the hidden agenda behind the distortion of the evidence, it asks an important question – if evidence can be distorted, how do the public know if EBM can be trusted? This goes back to the original question raised. If evidence can be manipulated, how do we actually define evidence? Evidence has long been seen as a collection of facts, but this does not take into account the ideas of bias, context or nuance. As Peter Toon, a retired GP states, this requires a fundamental rewriting of how evidence is characterised. Scientific objectivity is incredibly difficult to achieve, meaning that evidence can rarely be entirely objective and factual. With the rise in technology, it is now incredibly easy to spread false information and fabricated data, presenting something as 'evidence' when it is, in fact, not. Bias in medical research and therefore EBM is a huge concern, meaning a rewriting of how we define, create, use and value evidence is more important than ever.

Introduction
Evidence-based or evidence-informed policy is an idea that has seen an increase in interest over the years and dictates that objective evidence should take precedence over subjective and opinion-based tendencies in public policy decision making. It falls under the wide umbrella of evidence-based practices. Public policies often deal with a complex set of issues and ideas, and policymakers face the difficult task of having to undertake a wide range of steps, such as sorting through research findings and assessing their reliability, to aim for positive outcomes. As such some level of categorisation is required, and the perceived objectivity of quantitative research methods as opposed to individualistic beliefs has allowed the idea of evidence-based policy making to gain traction. Many advocates of the concept contend policymakers in the past have failed to achieve the best outcome simply because they do not appreciate or respond to the right evidence. They argue that evidence-based responses would correct this error. The idea, however, still remains controversial.

Criticisms of Evidence Collection
Some of the major criticisms levied against this approach to policy include the limiting set of methods and ways in which evidence is collected that are deemed acceptable by the approach. Social research and more ‘qualitative’ methods; many of which are essential when thinking about intricate and critical policies concerning human rights, equal opportunity and social justice can therefore end up being considered subordinate in the eyes of proponents, and the final policy could fail to address all aspects of the issue at hand. Evidence-based thinking in policy also fails to acknowledge the “political nature of decision making” and how evidence may be used selectively. As an extension of this, critics like sociologist Martin Hammersely argue the term ‘evidence-based policy’ itself can be leveraged to “mobilise support,” (Hammersely, 2013, p.15) due to the seemingly rational assumption that the use of any ‘evidence’ in decision-making is an inherently reliable practice.

Introduction
Academic disciplines are constantly evolving, negotiating the terms, conditions and standards of investigation, attribution and evidence. Evidence helps us to believe that something is or is not true in those disciplines. According to the "Harvard Law Review" from Professors Thayer's lectures, the etymological meaning of the word evidence is "the state of being clearly seen". It states that in our early law, evidence was used to denote writings or document, as they spoke for themselves. Therefore, the article claims that "Whatever must be shown to the Court is the subject-matter of evidence." (Harvard Law Review, Vol. 1, No. 5, 1887). In Civil Law or Common Law, evidence is the demonstration of the reality of a fact, a state, a circumstance or an obligation for the purpose of asserting a claim, in other words, the object of a request to which a person involved in legal proceedings asks to be granted. This is a fundamental notion, because in the context of a contestation, not being able to prove one's right is equivalent to not having one. The function of a judge is to gather evidence in order to make a decision and to judge a person as fairly as possible at the end of the trial. The system of evidence is established by Article 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which states: "It is incumbent on each party to prove in accordance with the law the facts necessary for the success of his claim."

Systems of Evidence
There are two systems of evidence in the French Civil Law: the system of moral evidence, which allows the use of all modes of evidence, and the system of legal evidence, which recognizes mainly written evidence. The moral evidence system is also called the free evidence system. The system of moral evidence is used to prove legal facts, with the exception of birth and death. The legal proof system is used when legal acts such as contracts or wills need to be proven beyond a certain amount set by a decree.

Issues with Evidence
One of the issues relating to evidence in law is that the role of the jury is not to interpret the law itself, but to interpret the evidence in the context of a violation. Although it is one of the most common form of information used as evidence in convictions worldwide, the evidence system is biased by the influence of human psychology and memory. Visual and perceptual factors affect the way we see an event, while perceptual experiences are stored by a memory system that is constantly evolving, which degrades the objective nature of a memory.

In addition, the data collection process is not error-free. The foundation of French Civil Law is the book called "Le Code Civil". It regroups the laws relating to civil law. Napoleon Bonaparte gathered a commission in 1804 to write a civil code under his chairmanship. It was composed of four members, all eminent jurists. Today, judges therefore rely on a 200-year-old book to determine whether a person is guilty or not. If the evidence is falsified, the justice system cannot be trusted. This legislative system is one of the three powers constituting the state in a democratic system.

Introduction
Evolutionary psychology is a relatively recent area of academic study in the social and natural sciences, with its most current form having emerged in the 1980s. In tandem with cognitive psychology, it focuses on human behaviour being from learned experiences. Given its relative youth as an area of academic interest and the subject’s interrelatedness with biological study, the qualification of substantive evidence in evolutionary psychology draws on the rigorously standardized methods and conventions of evolutionary biology. Considering such a connection, an assessment of what constitutes “evidence” in evolutionary biology more generally is first required.

Evidence in Evolutionary Biology
As in many disciplines, evolutionary biology draws on many sources of primary and secondary evidence. To begin, one such primary source held in near-sanctity in evolutionary biology is the fossil record. As early as 1799, geologist William Smith identified that in undisturbed layers of rock, fossils appeared to be in a sequential order, with the most recent fossils occurring nearer the top of these layers. Such a logical conclusion also lent itself to the construction of an approximate chronology of the fossils which was later corroborated by William Lonsdale in the 1830s. Not only does evolutionary biology make use of the fossil record, but also comparative anatomy as an additional source of evidence. Despite the many varying contexts and environments in which organisms may have emerged, homologous structures between organisms can be analyzed to establish a record of evolutionary history.

Evolutionary biology looks at the relationships between different organisms through taxonomic methods, for example the creation of phylogenetic trees. The use of evidence in the construction of these trees can be applied to the discipline as a whole. When constructing a tree, biologists make use of the Occam’s razor, or the law of parsimony. This is a logical principle that the solution which makes the fewest assumptions should be chosen. Therefore, when constructing a tree, biologists make sure that they choose the tree format where least evolutionary changes have occurred (for example, that fish never evolved legs, rather than fish evolved legs and then lost them). Such an assessment of evolutionary relationships incorporates the qualitative evidence observed by researchers in evolutionary biology, but a significant amount of quantitative evidence presents itself in the discipline as well. For example, the same phylogenetic tree construction can be done without assessment of divergent physical traits (phenotypes), but instead a change in genomic frequencies to base these categorizations (genotypes).

Despite the apparent increase in accuracy by the more qualitative data provided by genome sequencing, there is a lack of clarity even here. Although mistakes based on convergent evolution are less common when genotypical evidence is used, lateral gene transfer means that similarities in genes don't necessarily mean a shared common ancestor.

Evidence in Evolutionary Psychology
In contrast to the evidence of evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychology employs many more theoretical tenets to guide research in the field and draws on the methodology of psychology to support its claims. An example of this can be taken from the the waist/hip ratio detection module which assesses human mating preferences as a function of male human preference of female human waist/hip ratios. In this specific instance, hypothesis testing would be supported by "male subjects [being] presented with drawings of women with varying waist hip ratios and ask to give their preference rankings". The methodology of evolutionary psychology places it at the intersection of both qualitative and quantitative sources of evidence. A criticism of the field in its form of data collection, or the sources from which it draws its evidence, is that overwhelmingly standard psychological experimental methods are used to test hypotheses in evolutionary psychology. Considering this, the question arises about the extent to which evolution is being tested in otherwise purely psychological hypotheses.

Evidence in Linguistics
Linguistics is a discipline which looks at the scientific analysis and comparison of both extinct and extant human language, and the nature of language as a phenomenon. Some branches of linguistics make use of multidisciplinarity, taking influence from areas including philosophy, physics, psychology and anthropology.

Gathering of Evidence
The evidence gathered in linguistics is usually qualitative, as language is by its nature hard to quantify. An exception to this may be a field researcher using a qualitative checklist, or the quantitative linguistics branch of the subject which has given rise to conclusions about linguistic frequency distributions. Additionally, there is a preference for primary evidence, via direct observation of the spoken language or of written language if it is extinct.

In linguistics there are two main sources of evidence: spoken (and signed) evidence, and written evidence (other evidence does exist however, for example brain scans in the field of neurolinguistics). Modern linguistics primarily focuses on gathering evidence from spoken sources, because spoken language appears more innate to humans as some languages haven’t developed writing systems. This is a more recent development in the history of linguistics - the early 20th Century saw a shift towards a preference for spoken evidence. Despite this, there is still validity in written sources - especially in analysis of extinct languages and in the study of writing systems. Arguably the most famous piece of evidence in linguistics is the Rosetta stone, a granodiorite stela originating from Ancient Egypt, with three translations (Egyptian hieroglyphics, Demotic and Ancient Greek) of the same decree engraved on its surface. The translation between the Greek script and the hieroglyphics were pivotal in modern man's understanding and deciphering of the Ancient Egyptian writing system, mainly because of the work of Jean-François Champollion.

Analysis of Evidence
Evidence in linguistics is described in a way similar to other sciences: modern linguists aim to describe the nature of a language objectively and without bias. Opposing this method is the less common prescriptive linguistics, which is usually reserved for methods of language standardisation, for example the attempt at standardisation of the Inuktitut language by Christian missionaries in the 19th and 20th Century. It should be clear through this example that this view of linguistics has fallen out of favour due to criticisms that it promotes social elitism and colonial ideas. Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure divided linguistics into two: 'Langue', or systemic aspects of language (grammar), and 'Parole', which is actual speech. The renowned philosopher and anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss concluded from his research that all words were binary oppositions: hot or cold, raw or cooked, and words were man's constructs or symbols of evidence.

The gathered evidence can be analysed in different ways depending on the branch of linguistics: 'historical linguistics' is the study of how language can change over time, 'phonetics' studies the properties of speech and the formation of sounds by humans, and 'sociolinguistics' studies language in the context of culture and society.

Uses of Evidence
There is a range of uses for linguistic evidence analysis. One of the most practical applications is in the treatment of language-based neurological disorders such as aphasia, aided by evidence gathered in the field of neurolinguistics. The discipline of applied linguistics encompasses forensic linguistics, teaching of modern foreign languages, and foreign policy. Although less practical, linguistics is very important from an anthropological perspective as it allows for the documentation of languages which are becoming extinct.

Introduction
Artistic criticism is a discipline that allows the evaluation of artworks based on their description and appreciation. This assessment is carried out by an art critic within the framework of aesthetics or the theory of beauty. The gathering of evidence within this discipline is fundamentally tainted with subjectivity as it requires an interpretative process of the primary source: the raw material of the art being criticized from which a critical judgement has to be effectuated.

Evidence in Art Criticism
Each statement made about the artwork must be supported by evidences: elements within the visual material that leads to the argument. Firstly, a rigourous and objective description must be realized based on the art without any marks of subjectivity or value judgements. This constitues the primary evidence: it is objective and must be the basis of the art critic’s analysis. Even though this task requires a pure and objective description some argues that this process still employs an analytical perception forged by the individual’s experience and socio-cultural background which will necessarily transform the artwork. There are four scales of analysis in order to deliver a informed academic critique. The description, the analysis, the interpretation and the judgement. All of these steps must be supported by evidence found inside or outside the studied artwork.

The Evaluation of Evidence within the Discipline of Art Criticism
The validity of an art critic’s evidence is altered by the subjectivity of the art critic that conducts the analysis. Yet, the study of methods, theories, law and technical information frame their perspective and helps construct the arguments. A formal analysis of the artistic use of perspective and space, for example, considering technical studies, illustrates the validity of an art critic’s critical thinking.

Introduction
Mythology and Antiquity are studies which are often explored in tandem, despite clear distinctions in approaches. Mythology tends to be regarded as ahistorical, breaking away from traditional historiography. Use of mythology as historical chronologies is questionable for two primary reasons - a lack of evidence, and narrative contradiction. There is little evidence to support the claims made in many stories that hold mythological status, such as the Founding of Rome: the first form of evidence in recognition of the story arguably comes from the 4th Century BC. On the side of narrative contradiction, the chronology of Rome's founding diverges in the founder themselves, where some claim Aeneas to be the founder of Rome, whilst others suggest Romulus. The differing narratives and the lack of sources create contradictions and confusion when trying to use the source for narrative purposes and thus detract from the sources' value. Whilst it is normal for there to be different opinions and views upon events in antiquity due to the differing circumstances that contemporary writers experienced, for there to be such a lack of consensus over the key narrative points makes the narrative value of this myth low. This concept of the mythology being an ahistorical recording has led modern historians to claim that the two studies stand as "antithetical modes of explanation".

Myths as Qualitative Evidence
However, myths introduce different forms of qualitative evidence which can be used for different historical purposes. Whilst historians don't take myths literally as a genuine narrative of events, myths provide alternative ways to understand societies at the time. They help exemplify the sentiments of contemporary societies, for example, the concept that Romulus was responsible for Remus' murder in a form of fratricide echoes the idea that Rome was destined to tear itself apart. Myths help explain society's broader sentiments: desires, fears or simply areas that lacked understanding within a society. It can be argued that mythology helps explain a different aspect of history, and that mythology is the driver of history and societies. Thus, whilst mythology holds little evidential value for narrative events, it can hold significant evidential value when it comes to understanding ancient societies.

Introduction and origins
Evidence in the world of discipline is a crucial necessity one has to provide to prove that a matter is knowledgable. In Philosophy, the quantitative evidence is based upon experiments, interpretation, state of minds and is also relative to the context. In ancient philosophy, we can distinguish to different schools of thought regarding evidence. According to the Romans, evidence was when one's reality and thought coincided. This train of thought would lead to truth, "adequatio". In this context, evidence would be the merge of fact; one thought to discover an "adequatio". The Greeks and later on, Heiddeger gave another feature to evidence which would lead them to a different truth, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aletheia#:~:text=Aletheia%20(Ancient%20Greek%3A%20%E1%BC%80%CE%BB%CE%AE%CE%B8%CE%B5%CE%B9%CE%B1),truth%20or%20disclosure%20in%20philosophy.&text=Aletheia%20is%20variously%20translated%20as,also%20means%20factuality%20or%20reality. "aletheia"]. Here the evidence is the process of opening up appearances to find the truth. Already in the early days, evidence brings together varying trains of thought that all tend to demonstrate truth.

Evidence in Empiricism
Empiricism is a philosophical approach that uses experience as evidence to find the truth. Evidence will take the form of one's experience, and it can also pass through our senses, a "sensory evidence". This is what John Locke explains in his book "An Essay concerning human understanding" written in 1689. He notes that a human doesn't have any innate knowledge. The evidence that he will collect to attain a form of truth will be through his experience, which is the different interpretations he makes of his senses.

Evidence in Idealism
In idealism evidence to find the truth, one must pass by a state of "epoché" as Rene Descartes stated in his "Discourse on the Method" in 1937. Meaning that, to seek the truth, the individual must be involved in a process of doubting and questionning. This school of though diverges from Skepticism, that also emphasize the importance of doubting, as Idealism gives evidential value and credits to the individual’s intuition. As the first principles of demonstration can't be demonstrated, the only evidence will be one's intuition.

Different degrees of evidence and truths
Immanuel Kant, in his "Critique of pure Reason" in 1781 in rational approach opposite to idealism, finds that there are different types of evidence that give birth to separate categories of truth. He distinguishes one truth as an opinion which is when the subject evidence is insufficient subjectively and objectively. Then there is faith which is when the subject's evidence is inadequate objectively but sufficient subjectively. Lastly, what he calls knowledge is when one's evidence is objectively and subjectively sufficient.

Rest Assured: It's In The Evidence. Evidence in The Sciences.
To give reassurance that our judgements are correct we rely on evidence. Daily life contends that evidence should be backed up by expert scientific rigour and specialised research. In the UK, the National Health System (NHS) relies on NICE, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, for evidence based practice, NICE applies this to the treatment guidance for many different illness, disease, syndromes and therapies. Evidence is also behind government policy, education policy, and transport policy. It is apparent that evidence-based decision-making has a large impact on our daily life.

There are multiple different ways in which evidence is collected to form the basis of decision-making. These methods become interdisciplinary and with Combinatronics, which Alan Wilson applied in his 2010 book, Knowledge Power, to mean the combination of different systems working together, we can develop new solutions to problems. Applying historical knowledge from a variety of disciplines allows us to view phenomena from different perspectives, and to back up claims with evidence.

Natural Sciences
Natural Science, which looks to describe and explain the natural world, is based upon empirical evidence, or experimenting and observing natural phenomena, which is gathered via the scientific method. The scientific method has existed since the 17th Century and has become the standard for the natural sciences. Beginning with the creation of a hypothesis, an experiment is carried out to test the hypothesis in which evidence is measured under careful observation to reach a conclusion (or, analysis) in relation to the hypothesis. Modern scientific discoveries also undergo a process of peer review to make sure the results of the experiment are repeatable when followed by an external group. This methodology is so specific in an attempt to remove human bias from the results as much as possible.

Social Sciences
The social sciences, which include anthropology, human sciences, economics, human geography, law, philosophy, political science, international relations, psychology, social policy and sociology collate vast knowledge through the specialism of each discipline to give expert evidence based research.

When we look to ourselves for reassurance, 20th Century anthropologist Franz Boas believed that we refer back to our own "cultural environment" as the basis of the scale to measure others against. We cannot say one culture is superior to the other, both Boas and his renowned student Ruth Benedict both concluded that "Cultures" should be a plural noun, and all cultures should be equal to one another. Anthropologists undertake ethnography, or ethnographic studies, by immersing themselves within a community and taking detailed interviews, observations, and interpretations of what they see and are told. This gives clear evidenceof different peoples and societies and how they live, providing lessons for other cultures to learn from, as necessary. Clifford Geertz, called this "webs of significance." . As an article in The New Yorker magazine said, anthropologists are in the "struggle to prove that, despite differences of colour, gender, ability or custom, humanity is one undivided thing."

When we think we know best
Despite all of this evidence, humans do not necessarily follow the 'right' path, particularly when it is not in their interests. Under COVID, Scotland is the only country in the world that has curated data in relation to the number of cases, deaths and a breakdown of these figures. This was published in The Lancet, but went unreported in the mass media. No other country has produced this, so when the public asks the questions of the politicians, they do not have the data or evidence to justify their policies. In more recent years there has been a tendency for politicians to dismiss scientists when there is a disagreement between the parties over priorities or solutions. As US President Donald Trump said, 'People are really surprised I understand this stuff" and of his chief scientist Anthony Fauci "People are tired of hearing Fauci and all these idiots."

Introduction to Architectural Design
Architectural design is the conceptualisation and creation of buildings in response to a prompt or demand. Architecture has a long history with the first buildings being created with a balance between needs and resources, then evolving into a craft taking into account key concepts including form, space and order. The process of architectural design can be defined as finding a solution to a problem : a new space that responds to and solves issues found with or unanswered by the old. Thus the measure of architecture is how well ‘the problem’ is answered. This ‘problem’ or ‘problems’ can be both quantifiable or qualitative (for example, unsteady foundations causing deterioration in walls, or a perfectly usable space remaining unused because it does not fulfill any particular need).

Evidence-based design works to avoid these problems before they happen. Based on the methodology of evidence-based medicine, it uses predetermined processes to create designs.

External Responses
Architecture is not an isolated subject, it is intrinsically linked to its surroundings, whether culturally, socio-politically, environmentally, etc.

In some architectural problems, the solution’s success may depend on its environmental cost. The life-cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) is a practice to quantify the cradle-to-cradle (or cradle-to-grave) environmental, social and economic cost of a building. The LCSA developed with a need to broaden and deepen the scope of assessment from the earlier life-cycle assessment (LCA) which focused solely on environmental cost. There are four stages to LCSA standardised under the ISO : This is to establish why the study is being undertaken, what will it be applied to, and who it is for. It establishes the ‘functional unit’ which is a ‘quantitative measure of the functions that the goods (or service) provide’. This quantifies the direct cost of all inputs and outputs of resources in relation to the functional unit. It also can include the indirect costs, called the ‘consequential LCA’. The LCI includes data collection. This is the realisation of data from the LCI and seeing how the cost has manifested and to what extent. Within this stage, the LCI and LCIA are synthesised and through the framework established in the first stage, used as a stepping stone for decisions and conclusions.
 * Goal and Scope Definition:
 * Life Cycle Inventory Analysis (LCI):
 * Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA):
 * Interpretation:

Internal Response
According to Frank Lloyd Wright, a key concept in architecture is user response to a design, how people feel and interact with a space: “All fine architectural values are human values, else not valuable.” Biological user response can be measured quantitatively through the monitoring of physical response (like brain activity, skin conductance and heart rate ), often in a virtual experience. This has been used to measure response to colour, light , and spacial proportions. Qualitative research methods are also used in architectural feedback for descriptive analysis, such as surveys, case studies, and performance tests.

Meta-analysis
Meta analysis is the process of synthesizing results from multiple research studies that ask the same question. It has been used in architecture to draw more holistic conclusions intra- and interdiscipline.